Anthony wrote:
> > Removing 100 random external links? For a
few weeks? Then adding
> > back the ones that deserve to be added back?
> Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and
indicate that the
> appropriate links would be restored?
If this is done, then does it cease to be vandalism?
No.
Where did you ask Gwern about this?
My above question was a sincere response to your mention of specific
details, not a rhetorical complaint (though I do believe that it was
incumbent upon Gwern to volunteer such information to the community or
the WMF for review *before* engaging in mass vandalism).
> > > As discussed in this thread, it
isn't clear that Gwern's
> > > parameters are likely to yield useful information, so this might
> > > amount to nothing more than random vandalism. Imagine if
> > > hundreds or thousands of editors took it upon themselves to
> > > conduct such "experiments" without consulting the community or
> > > the WMF.
> > Removing 100 random external links? For a
few weeks? Then
> > adding back the ones that deserve to be added back? Okay, I'm
> > imagining it.... Sounds like something that would improve the
> > encyclopedia.
> Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users,
whose methodologies
> are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon
> themselves to conduct such "experiments" without consultation or
> approval? That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred.
Yes, I know.
And you believe that this would improve the encyclopedia? (Please
keep in mind that knowledge of a time frame and commitment to restore
the links "that deserve to be added back" aren't actually included in
the scenario; we would know little or nothing about the hypothetical
users' plans.)
Thousands of users all taking in upon themselves to
act in in good
faith, without discussion and in ways which are potentially flawed, to
try to improve an encyclopedia in the way they see best. We should
come up with a catchy name for that. Maybe something based on a
Hawaiian word.
good faith != prudence
way they see best != best way
wiki != anarchy
An editor, acting in good faith, might believe that inserting original
research and edit-warring to keep it in place improves the
encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that we're obligated to condone such
behavior, let alone without discussion.
What doesn't make much sense is the simultaneous
belief that 1) no one
cares;
People obviously care about vandalism. This simply isn't a glaring
type, nor does it affect an element of the utmost importance.
and 2) it is vandalism that absolutely *must be
stopped* lest Kant
roll over in his grave.
Our default position is to condemn vandalism and seek to counter it.
The onus is on Gwern to establish that a special exception should be
made.
David Levy